35 responses to “Judge Andrew P. Napolitano on Natural Law”

rahyah

November 25, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Phil, would it be unreasonable for you to to provide a web link or provide the case cite where others may determine for themselves, purportedly that you claim supports your suggestions respecting your commentary germane to whom “We the People” were or are?

The judge is ignorant of, or chooses to omit, the material fact that the Supreme Court has consistently said the people, not the states, established the Constitution.

“…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, ‘We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.’ Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution…”

— Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793

“The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the constitution declares, by ‘the people of the United States’…. The constitution of the United States was designed for the common and equal benefit of all the people of the United States.”

— Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1816

“The government proceeds directly from the people; is ‘ordained and established’ in the name of the people, and is declared to be ordained in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity. The assent of the States in their sovereign capacity is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it, and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State Governments. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation and bound the State sovereignties.”

As currently defined, a “collective” is a fictional entity and (usually) a sovereign. I.e., under the collectivist forms of government like communism, socialism, and democracy, the “sovereign” is all of the people combined into a single sovereign: the “collective”. Under the “republican form of government” established for the States of the Union by our Constitution, the people are sovereigns as individuals rather than as a single collective. Under the “republican form of government,” I have the rights of a sovereign and so do each of you. Under a collectivist form of government I have no standing or rights as a sovereign, and neither do any of you. In a collectivist form of government, I am at best a subject and at worst a slave or animal.

Therefore, I am very wary of the word “collective” as was used in the Chisholm v Georgia case previously quoted by Toland.

According to the copy of Chisholm vs. Georgia at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419, the words “collective” and “collectively” were each used twice (four times, altogether) by Justice John Jay in his “separate” opinion. I doubt that Justice Jay used those “c-words” in the same sense they are used today (as a single political entity/sovereign). But even if he did,the “c-words” were not included in the Opinion of the Court (which is the law), or in any of the other three “separate” opinions by Justices Blair, Wilson, and Cushing but only in Jay’s separate opinion.

The quoted excerpt from Chisholm vs Georgia that Toland provided (above) is part of the total commentary on that case by the Supreme Court, but it is not part of the actual case law presented by the court. It’s part of a “separate opinion” written by Justice Jay alone. It’s useful information, but it’s not an authoritative part of the case law.

In essence, all I’m trying to say is that you should be very wary, whenever you see the word “collective” because, if you can be presumed to live in a collective (like democracy) you can be presumed to be a subject, slave or animal.

As an aside, it’s also interesting that Findlaw.com–which has a massive, free database of case law, statutory law and regulations from both the federal and state levels–does not currently list the Chisholm vs Georgia under either parties’ names. This may be an oversight, but it might also be evidence that “somebody” doesn’t want you folks to read one of the most important cases in American history.

The above excerpt from Chisholm v. Georgia is as authoritative as it gets. It is a “separate opinion” by Justice Jay because “separate opinions” are the only opinions the Supreme Court published at the time. There was no “opinion of the Court” or “majority opinion”. Each of the Justices delivered his own opinion.

What’s more, Justice Jay was both Chief Justice of the Court and in the majority opinion for this case. So if anything in the Chisholm v. Georgia ruling is authoritative, it’s the text by Justice Jay, which includes the language “…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution.”

Adask

November 26, 2014 at 4:32 PM

According to the copy of Chisholm v Georgia at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419, you are mistaken. The case expressly and specifically begins with the “Opinion of the Court” attributed to Justice J. Iredell. Below that “Opinion of the Court,” the document expressly lists four more “Separate Opinions“–one by Justice Blair, another by Justice Wilson, a third by Justice Cushing, and a fourth by Justice J. Jay.

Neither the “Opinion of the Court” nor the following three “Separate Opinions” contain the word “collective” or “collectively”. Those words appear only in the last “Separate Opinion” attributed to Justice Jay.

Toland

November 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Yeah, that’s a mistake by the website you’re quoting.

Again, at the time of Chisholm v. Georgia, the Supreme Court did not issue an “opinion of the Court” or similar. Your cornell.edu page is simply wrong on this point. Right away, the fact that Justice Iredell is being credited with writing the so-called “opinion of the Court” oughta tell you something’s screwy. Iredell was in the minority for this case.

Summary of a book at Google Books:

“Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), is considered the first United States Supreme Court case of significance and impact. Given its date, there is little available legal precedent (particularly in American law). In a 4 to 1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, with Chief Justice John Jay and Associate Justices John Blair, James Wilson, and William Cushing constituting the majority; only Justice Iredell dissented. (In that time, there was no opinion of the Court or majority opinion; the Justices delivered their opinions individually and in ascending order of seniority.)”

On the other hand, Justice Jay – who wrote “…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution” – was in the majority. He was also Chief Justice at the time. So if anyone’s opinion is authoritative in this case, it’s the opinion of Justice Jay.

Adask

November 27, 2014 at 4:48 AM

I agree that something is “screwy”–but it’s not clear to me what that “something” is. I see at least two differing opinions on the subject of Chisholm vs Georgia. I’m assured by you that the opinion published by Cornell University is wrong. Maybe so, but what are the odds?

Why would Cornell publish a false opinion? What would the perpetrators behind the false opinion conspire to diminish the power of Justice Jay’s opinion (which alone used the word “collective”) and increase the power of Justice Iredell’s opinion?

You are quoting a mere book by a private author about the Chisholm vs Georgia case as the authority for your contentions. That book was published in A.D. 2011–just three years ago. Cornell University appears to be quoting the actual case as written circa A.D. 1793–over 200 years ago. If you were an historian, which source would you guess to be more reliable?

If you were a conspiracy theory advocate, which source would you suppose was more likely to be perverted–what appears to be the “original” from A.D. 1793 or what has been published in the last three years?

I don’t know which source is mistaken, but if Cornell University has published a falsified version of Chisholm v Georgia (one of the most important cases in American history), there should be some authoritative old books or even other data bases that would quickly expose that error. If Cornell is wrong about its copy of Chisholm, that error should be as glaring and easily refuted as seeing a California “smiley face” in the place where we normally see George Washington on a $1 bill.

If I had to speculate, I’d suppose that the Cornell University’s presentation of the text of the Chisholm vs. Georgia case was more accurate than that of a privately written book that’s just 3 years old.

How odd. This suggests that the 3-year-old book you’re relying on to support your opinion may not be for sale and that we will simply have to take your word for the “fact” that the book offers an accurate interpretation of Chisholm vs. Georgia, and you are offering and accurate representation of a few sentences of text from that book. If the book you’re quoting is for sale somewhere, it’s at least not listed among the New York Times “Best Sellers”.

Am I correct in understanding that you want me and my readers to base our understanding of Chisholm vs Georgia on the text of a 3-year old book that’s at least not easily purchased or even found rather than Cornell University’s data base of Supreme Court cases?

Anyone can easily find the Cornell Website and copy of Chisholm vs Georgia that I’m relying on. Can anyone besides you find a copy of the book that you’re relying on?

Toland

November 27, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Adask asked, “Why would Cornell publish a false opinion?”

They didn’t. The opinions published by Cornell are the actual opinions of the case. Cornell does however MISLABEL these opinions on their website, probably due to an automated computer error. This mislabeling is evident for two reasons.

1) Justice Iredell, whose opinion Cornell mislabels “opinion of the Court”, was in the DISSENT, whereas only a majority opinion is ever an “opinion of the Court”.

2) The Supreme Court did not issue an “opinion of the Court” in Chisholm v. Georgia.

In addition to the source already cited, we have Wikipedia:

“…In that time, there was no “opinion of the Court” or “majority opinion”; the Justices delivered their opinions seriatim, that is, individually, and in ascending order of seniority….”

“Before Chief Justice Marshall’s era [1801 to 1835], Supreme Court justices filed judicial opinions individually, or seriatim; the Court issued no opinion reflecting the rationale of a majority of justices in the cases it decided.”

—Seriatim: The Supreme Court Before John Marshall, by Scott Douglas Gerber (editor). New York: New York University Press, 1998, xi, 362 pp.

So yeah, Cornell’s web site has a mistake. There is no “opinion of the court” in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793).

Adask

November 28, 2014 at 6:14 AM

You don’t appear to have given us a “cite” from a court case. I only see a quote from a book edited by Mr. Gerber. It’s not even clear that Mr. Gerber is the author but may only have edited a series of articles written by several different authors who may not even agree between themselves as to how the cases were all decided and declared by the Court prior to Marshall.

Let’s suppose that the Supreme Court did use the “seriatim” procedure to prior to Justice Marshal’s reign. Let’s agree that virtually all pre-Marshal cases were decided by “seriatim” procedure. Does that mean that all cases–without a single exception–were decided by “seriatim” procedure? Or could it be that the Supreme Court was trying to figure out how to declared their decisions and “seriatim” was their first attempt at establishing a workable procedure. But did they experiment and try other procedures before they settled on a single means of presentation under Marshall?

I’m not saying the “seriatim” claim is false. But, insofar as you’re quoting a book written in A.D. 1998, that claim is, so far, based on the opinion of one author writing 200 years after Chisholm v Georgia.

What I’d like to see is copy of the original Chisholm v. Georgia case that we can all agree accurately illustrates whatever presentation process the court actually used in that particular case.

Toland

November 27, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Roger, thanks for the cite.

The opinion of Justice Iredell, who was actually in the dissent, was probably mislabeled “opinion of the Court” because Iredell’s opinion appears first in the transcript, which is where the “opinion of the Court” started appearing in the 1800s (well after Chisholm v. Georgia).

Since the Supreme Court did not issue an “opinion of the Court” at the time, the order in which Justices’ opinions appeared was based on seniority: from least to most senior.

The opinion of Justice Jay – the Chief Justice, who wrote “…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution….” in his opinion – appears last because he had the most seniority.

Nowadays, the Chief Justice, when in the majority, writes the “opinion of the Court”. So the opinion of Justice Jay would take the role of “opinion of the Court” if the Chisholm v. Georgia decision happened today.

Roger

November 28, 2014 at 9:33 AM

In the meantime:

1. Note that what Cornell is calling the “opinion of the Court” in Chisholm v. Georgia is the opinion written by Justice Iredell.

2. Note that Justice Iredell held the dissenting opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia.

3. Ask yourself the question: How likely is it that a dissenting justice would write the “opinion of the Court” for a Supreme Court ruling?

Once we have all faced the answer to the question in #3, we’ll have a better idea how to proceed toward an honest resolution of this discussion.

Roger

November 28, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Here’s one more, Toland:

“The practice of issuing a single opinion of the Court was initiated during the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall during the early nineteenth century. This custom replaced the previous practice under which each Justice, whether in the majority or the minority, issued a separate opinion.”

Ignorance of the fact that the Supreme Court issued no “opinion of the Court” at the time of Chisholm v. Georgia is perhaps excusable, but not knowing that a dissenting opinion is never the “opinion of the Court” reveals Cornell to not be a credible source in these matters.

So, with Justice Iredell aside, we’re left with Justice Jay, who was both Chief Justice and in the majority, as having the most authoritative opinion in this case, if any opinion has that unique status.

Roger

November 26, 2014 at 7:14 PM

Phil quoted Wikipedia: “A collective is a group of entities that share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together to achieve a common objective.”

Thanks for posting, Phil, and note that there are those who really do want We the People to cease “working together to achieve a common objective”. Among these are the billionaire-sponsored anarchists at the Mises Institute where Napolitano was speaking. These radicals have stated in writing that they would abolish the Constitution collectively established by We the People, along with our government as such, so that only the power of money remains. This makes the Mises Institute a seditious, and possibly treasonous, organization.

Yet somehow this brood of vipers thinks they’re too subtle to answer for their treachery on behalf of the international Money Power which would rule over us unchecked by the collective political strength of We the People expressed through the rule of law.

I have looked into the Mises Institute and I think I have a different opinion than you have. Mises was one of the brains behind the Austrian School of Economics. The only competition that this line of thought, that I know of, are the Chicago school AKA the Monetarist which was led by Milton Friedman and the Keynesian school. There may be other schools in communist countries that I don’t know about. The Keynesians believe that money is a tool of the corporatists. The central authorities can increase, decrease, money, and tax people to get them to behave properly. The Chicago school does not like gold. They think that the money supply should be increased proportionally to the growth of the economy. This would eliminate inflation and deflation. The Austrian school thinks that government should not be in the money business at all. If you and I would like to use gold, oil, timber, corn or anything else to carryout transactions, then the governments purpose is to enforce our contracts.

There are many millionaires who identify with the Austrians but there are few billionaires or trillionaires. The billionaires and above are mostly Keynesians. It looks like they are trying to prevent the low class millionaires to compete with them. The millionaires pay a much higher tax rate that the billionaires. Gates, Buffet, Rockefeller, and the really rich create trusts that are not taxed. The wars and social programs line the pockets of the really rich who only contribute to the political machine to keep their puppets in place.

If there are other options, I’d like to know what they are. I’m not an expert in the Austrian school, perhaps you can list a few ideas that they hold that people who believe in limited government would disagree with.

The billionaires and above WERE mostly Keynesians. Starting in the late 20th century, most visibly in post-Soviet Russia, they switched to being Austrians.

After centuries of co-opting and enlarging the power of governments, this approach to world domination had reached the point of diminishing returns. Hence the recent switch to the next phase of their long-range plan for a New World Order: the neutralization of the nation state as the last remaining check on the hegemonic power of money.

> “…perhaps you can list a few ideas that they hold that people who believe in limited government would disagree with.

Such as the abolition of government so the “free market” (i.e. the Money Power, with its effective unlimited financial resources) can rule unchecked by the collective political power of We the People?

The idea at very core of the Austrians’ “anarcho-capitalism” is contrary to those who believe in limited government: e.g. the Founders of this country, and the entity We the People whose express will established constitutional government.

This explains why the audience at the seditious Mises Institute withheld their applause when the judge mentioned areas where government established by the will of the People does have a legitimate role to play.

Roger and henry I was reading your comment and knew that I had heard of “Mises Institute” before and it came to me. I had saved a bunch of this last year…

Did you see this?

You have nothing to be concerned about. The Federal Reserve is only an “EXPERIMENT”, At least according to InfoWars, who did not refute the claim in the two articles below!
Posted at;
100 Years Ago: Why Bankers Created the Fed by Peter G. Schiff
http:*//www.infowars.com/100-years-ago-why-bankers-created-the-fed/

On December 14, 2013 from LewRockwell.com …”How the Paper Money Experiment Will End”…
http:*//www.infowars.com/how-the-paper-money-experiment-will-end/

The information in those two articles came from:

…”Christopher Westley is an associated scholar at the Mises Institute. He teaches in the College of Commerce and Business Administration at Jacksonville State University”…

…”Philipp Bagus is an associate professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. He is an associate scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute”…
Who is posting these articles with out fact checking them unchallenged? No wonder the “Bankers” are winning!

http:*//mises.org/

Peter G. Schiff knows what he is talking about. His people knows money.

Schiff family is a Jewish financial dynasty in the United States, who came to prominence with the rise of Jacob Schiff. Their ancestors were bankers and rabbinical ideologues in Frankfurt, tracing back to the 14th century. From his base in Wall Street, Schiff became the leader of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, a Jewish investment bank and rivals of J.P. Morgan & Co which primarily funded the railways and growth companies, such as Western Union and Westinghouse. Jacob Schiff, a Zionist, was ultra-ethnocentric in worldview and worked tirelessly to destroy Tsar Nicholas II and the Russian EmpireHe also funded the Judeo-Bolshevist usurpation of Russia, through co-tribalists Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin to the amount of $20 million.

Schiff’s descendant Andrew Newman Schiff is married to former Vice President Al Gore,s daughter, Karenna

henry

December 1, 2014 at 11:12 PM

Roger,

That is interesting. After stealing all the wealth, it might make sense that they would want to have their private property protected. I will need to take a closer look.

henry

December 2, 2014 at 5:58 PM

Earlier in this thread there was a controversy about Chisholm v. Georgia. The text of the decision was in question. Two different, usually reliable, sources had a different “majority opinion”. It looks like Cornell law, intentionally or unintentionally, reversed the meaning of the decision. Edoms Thorn stated that Peter Schiff part of the Jewish financial dynasty. I thought that was incorrect so I checked. I found a number of sites, including Wikipedia, which stated that Peter Schiff was the son of John Schiff who is part of the dynasty. But I met his father, Irwin. I read several of his books. I think Irwin is still in prison for tax evasion. Peter has talked about his father’s legal troubles. Irwin is also not related to the banking dynasty. So here is another example of, usually reliable, sources reporting incorrect information. A number of other sites have accepted the error as truth and propagated the falsehood.

Adask

December 2, 2014 at 6:09 PM

I met Irwin Schiff three or four times in the 1990s. Interviewed him on my radio shows once or twice. He was a character. He was convicted of tax evasion or willful failure to file because he made an affirmative defense and didn’t understand that such defense is first and foremost, a confession of guilt as charged.

It’s my understanding that Irwin (who is probably in his 80s) is currently in some sort of nursing home associated with the prison system.

henry, so many facts are demonized and defended with distractions and distortions, but that is what EDOM has been doing for over 2,200 years. There is a reason that our enemy perpetrates frauds, and makes cliams that the TRUTH is a lie! We are met with the challenge to learn the truth. Working towards the truth is my goal. If and when I am in error, I will admit it. While the following is not exhaustive, there is research out there that shows contrary evidence to what we may believe.

PETER SCHIFF & GOLD CONFISCATION
http;//www.watch.pair.com/synarchy-7.html
Peter claims that his father is Irwin Schiff, age 81, who is currently serving a 13 ….

The ‘rabbit hole’ is deep.

For further information that will also be claimed to be in ERROR by further research, see the following.
During the Russo-Japanese War in 1904 and 1905, in perhaps his most famous financial action, Schiff, again through Kuhn, Loeb & Co., extended a critical series of loans to the Empire of Japan, in the amount of $200 million. This loan attracted worldwide attention, and had major consequences. Japan won the war, thanks in large part to the purchase of munitions made possible by Schiff’s loan. Some within the Japanese leadership took this as evidence of the power of Jews all around the world, of their loyalty to one another, and as proof of the truth of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion…

What are we to believe, when there are so many differences of ‘opinion , and sources? I think we should take into account the “BODY” or complete information available to us, and then make use of ALL information before we settle for the “answers”. If there is an enemy, it stands to reason that they will try to distort and distract from the truth.

Toland

December 2, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Just a point of clarification, henry.

All the sources for the Chisholm v. Georgia ruling appear to agree on the actual opinions of Justices. The difference is that Cornell adds an “opinion of the Court” label to the opinion by Justice Iredell. This can’t be right for two reasons. First and foremost, Justice Iredell was in the dissent for that case. Secondly, the Supreme Court did not start issuing “opinions of the Court” until years later.

FindLaw and Justia do not repeat Cornell’s “opinion of the Court” error. Aside from this difference, all three sources appear to agree. But this is a seriously misleading difference. As you mention, mislabeling a dissenting Justice’s opinion the “opinion of the Court” reverses the meaning of the decision.

Getting back to the speech Judge Napolitano made, There are two main points that need to be mentioned.
1) What he said at the end about the younger generation being killed at the hands of the government we live under today!!! I shared this with my Mother and Daughter today because my child doesn’t want to believe me when I try to educate her. Maybe the Judge and Grandma can help do it. We should all expose evil, as is said in Ephesians ch 5:11.

2) Judge Napolitano felt he could really speak his mind here in this forum, but must hold back when on Fox News. I wonder if Fox will look for an excuse to get rid of him completely?